Hi all,
Responding to my own mail now that the IESG retreat has concluded.
Hi Adrian, On Apr 17, 2019, at 11:10 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for this email, Alissa. It's interesting. I presume it means that the IESG is unanimous, because it only takes one AD to AD sponsor a draft.
I asked the IESG. I did not get responses from everyone, but of the people who did respond none of them volunteered to AD-sponsor.
BoFs are very good forums for debating stuff. Good for focussing in on requirements. Good for scoping work. Good for establishing a community to do the work.
But:
- why wait until Montreal to discuss this?
- why use a predominantly face-to-face meeting to discuss an issue that is considerably about non-attendance at face-to-face meetings?
- what more work is needed beyond debating the content of the current draft?
Can I suggest:
- An AD needs to "adopt" this idea. That doesn't mean support it, but it does mean facilitation
- A mailing list venue is needed (either this list or a new specific list)
- A virtual/interim BoF be held in (say) four weeks from now.
A virtual or physical BOF is certainly possible. We did a virtual BOF for LURK, and I think one other one recently that I’m failing to remember. And typically a successful BOF is preceded by active discussion on a mailing list, which of course anyone can request (or re-use ietf-nomcom as Spencer suggested). The IESG will discuss at our retreat next week if there is an AD available to shepherd this effort right now.
The IESG discussed this topic at our retreat. We have setup eligibility-discuss@xxxxxxxx to be the home for the discussions of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev and related discussions about recall and nomcom elgibility criteria, the recall process, and remote participation. If you’re interested in these topics, please subscribe to that list. Alexey, Warren, and Suresh will be guiding discussions on that mailing list and will be reaching out to the draft authors about next steps. We have also requested a shepherd from the IAB to help with this.
I will send to eligibility-discuss@xxxxxxxx my own responses to some outstanding emails in this thread that were addressed to me and deal with the substance of the draft. Best, Alissa for the IESG Alissa
Why rush? We've lasted this long with the current system, why do a few extra months matter?
Well, the answer is that the energy to do the work is there now. Let's use that energy to discuss and (if agreed) make changes. Let's not risk anyone suggesting that we are deferring discussions in the hope that the issue goes away :-)
Thanks,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: 17 April 2019 15:46
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>; IESG <iesg@xxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
Hi SM,
On Apr 5, 2019, at 12:08 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear General Area Director,
In March, I sent a message to the IETF discussion list about the recall process. As you are probably aware, there was a lively discussion on the subject. I submitted an I-D [1] about the subject. There were a comments on the I-D and they were addressed in draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-01
I am enquiring about whether you, or any other Area Director, would like to sponsor the I-D or whether you would like a proposal for a working group to look into the draft and other related issues.
I discussed this with the IESG and our recommendation is for you to submit a BOF proposal if you’d like to pursue this further. We think these kinds of changes to the IETF’s governance structure need the more in-depth problem statement discussion and broader review that a chartering process and working group would provide.
Thanks,
Alissa
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-01
|
